At first glance we can be forgiven for thinking that there simply is not enough food to feed everyone in the world, that there are simply too many people and that the carrying capacity of the planet is exhausted. Looking to the future one can only imagine this problem worsening as the number of people grows and the land available for agriculture shrinks as a result of desertification and rising sea levels, to say nothing of environmental degradation due to the overuse of chemical fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides; concomitants of large-scale, industrial agriculture.

It would appear sensible, therefore, in any discussion on food security[1], to begin by examining the relationship between population and hunger. A subject that "has been hotly debated since Thomas Malthus published his Essay on the principles of hunger in 1798"[2]. Malthus argued that "while population grows exponentially, food production grows only arithmetically, inevitably moving us toward scarcity and famine".[3] Appealing as Malthus theory may be in terms of explaining the growing number of people suffering from malnutrition and endemic hunger, the facts suggest otherwise. As Peter Rosset informs us, "over the last 35 years, global per capita food production has outstripped population growth by 16 per cent. We now have more food available per person than ever before in human history".[4] Whilst according to Lappe, et al, there is enough food available to provide "every person with 4.3 pounds of food every day: 2.5 pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of meat, milk and eggs and another of fruits and vegetables".[5] Indeed, Rosset goes on to argue that "one of the greatest problems faced by the worlds farmers is over production, which results in low farm prices".[6] This disincentive for food growers is counter balanced in the USA and European Union by the use of liberal subsidies, not to mention waste as every year tonnes of food are literally dumped. Such luxuries are clearly not available to the majority of countries where most of the worlds hungry live.

Based on the above information, there appears to be no real scarcity of food. What, then, can be said to be the causes of hunger and starvation? A Panos briefing paper provides us with the following answer:

it is now widely accepted that food insecurity does not result from an absolute shortage of food, but has economic roots. Some analysts believe that the world already produces adequate food and can continue to do so with traditional techniques, but that the food is unevenly distributed. The single most important cause of hunger is poverty. The FAO, while accepting that low productivity in agriculture is one of the principle causes of under-nutrition and food-insecurity, identifies poverty and policy constraints as more important causes of low productivity than inadequate technology. The causes and consequences of food insecurity and poverty are inextricably linked.[7]

If we are prepared to accept that there is, in fact enough food available for everyone, then we also have to accept that we are faced with a problem, not of scarcity but of distribution. Something that is pretty well accepted by institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO.

Increasing Trade

The IMF, World Bank and WTO solution to the problem of distribution is to argue for greater liberalisation of Less Developed Countries (LDC) markets. Allowing market forces free reign, they argue, will result in the optimum distribution of resources as well as improving efficiency in production. What they fail to see, however, is that in a capitalist market economy, distribution is determined by ability to pay; i.e., those with the money get the resources, those without, do not. Thus, access to food is not a matter of availability or need, but rather of wealth. Put another way, hunger is caused not by scarcity but by poverty, a problem that is by no means restricted to LDCs. Questions of hunger and food security are, therefore, questions of poverty. If we are to solve the problem of hunger, we need first to solve the problem of poverty.

As we saw above, access to food and other resources is not a matter of availability, but rather of ability to pay. Put bluntly, those with the most money command the most resources, whilst those with little or no money go hungry. This inevitably leads to a situation whereby some sections of humanity arguably have too much and other sections little or nothing. Indeed, globally the richest 20 per cent of humanity controls around 85 per cent of all wealth, whilst the poorest 20 per cent control only 1.5 per cent. As Geofrey Lean wrote in the British Sunday newspaper, the Observer, in 1989:

Whilst Americans (sic) spend US$5 billion each year on special diets to lower calorie consumption, the worlds poorest 400 million people are so under nourished that they are likely to suffer stunted growth, mental retardation or death. As Water from a single spring in France is shipped to the prosperous around the world, 1.9 billion people drink water contaminated by parasites and pathogens.[8]

This situation is further compounded by a number of factors, such as IMF and World Bank lending strategies as well as the increasing tendency for the worlds wealth to be concentrated in ever fewer hands, notably those of multinational corporations.

Food vs. Profits

As an indication of the economic power enjoyed by multinational corporations, a 1995 study by the Institute for Policy Studies (IS) provides us with the information that: "of the top 100 economies in the world, 51 are corporations, only 49 are countries ... The top 200 corporations combined sales are bigger than the combined economies of all countries minus the biggest 9; that is they surpass the combined economies of 182 countries." IS go on to point out that the twelfth largest corporation, Wal-Mart, had annual sales greater in value than the GDPs of 161 countries.

Looking at how this economic power translates into real terms, we see from the following table that the vast majority of the world's trade in commodities is accounted for by a handful of transnational corporations.

Table 1. Corporate Control of Global Commodity Trade, 1983

Commodity

World Exports

($ million)

% marketed by 3-6

largest transnationals*

Food

Wheat

17,851

85-90

Sugar

10,636

60

Corn

9,833

85-90

Coffee

9,636

85-90

Rice

3,613

70

Cocoa Beans

2051

85

Tea

1,844

80

Bananas

1,324

70-75

Pineapples (fresh)

74

90

Agricultural raw materials

Forest products

47,255

90

Cotton

6,567

85-90

Tobacco

4,239

85-90

Hides and skins

4,047

25

Natural Rubber

3,321

70-75

Jute

135

85-90

Ores, minerals and metals

Mineral fuels

382,685

75

Copper

8,287

80-85

Iron ore

6,231

90-95

Tin

2,230

75-80

Phosphates

1,588

50-60

Bauxite

833

80-85

* In a few cases up to 15 transnational traders account for the bulk of the market.

It is, however, not only in trade that the economic power of transnational corporations can be seen. In Britain it is widely acknowledged that the top five supermarket chains are not only able to decide what is available and at what price, they also exercise enormous influence over what is actually grown. The scale of their buying powers allows these chains to dictate to farmers the prices that will be paid for produce as well as what produce the farmers can sell. This has lead to a loss of many species of fruit and vegetables in Britain, not only from supermarket shelves, but also from agricultural existence as supermarkets tend to be more concerned with the appearance of the produce they sell rather than the quality or taste. Thus, all produce that does not fit with the giant retailers idea of perfect appearance' is rejected and growers learn to grow only the produce that the supermarkets will buy.

In Less Developed Countries the problem of land use is even more acute. Whilst the majority of food produce tends to be grown on small, subsistence farms, the bulk of the best agricultural land is used for the growing of cash crops. Partly a legacy of colonial policies, partly a result of the debt problem and IMF and World Bank solutions to this problem, we find that people in the LDCs, particularly the rural poor, are going hungry whilst the bulk of these countries agricultural output is exported to Europe and the USA.

Under colonialism, the colonial powers used a number of measures to enforce the growing of agricultural produce that could be used in the industries of the colonial powers. For example, by imposing taxes on rural populations that had to be paid in money, these rural populations were forced to grow cotton, coffee, cotton wool, rubber, etc., which were sold at set prices to the colonial powers. The raw materials would then generally be exported to the home country where they would be utilised in production. The finished products, as well as being sold on the domestic market, would also be re-exported to the country from which the original raw material came. Apart from in a few cases where the colonial power might actually set up wholly owned manufacturing plants in the colonised area, manufacturing or processing was forbidden. This is, of course, one reason for the extremely low level of development in many LDCs, particularly African countries, most of which only gained their independence in the last fifty years.

Since independence, the economic relations between most African countries and their former colonial powers have hardly changed at all. Coming to independence with little or no industry, the only source of foreign income for most was continued export of raw resources and borrowing, with the latter leading to the serious debt situation that cripples so many LDCs today.

The "structural adjustment" policies laid down by the IMF and World Bank as conditions for obtaining help from these organisations have, it is widely acknowledged, had a devastating effect on the already suffering economies of virtually all countries forced to borrow money under these auspices. It also has to be said that countries failing to have the IMF/IBRD seal of approval will find it impossible to find either other sources of credit or, of perhaps greater importance, attract any kind of FDI. Since any country not approved by these agencies will be deemed too great a risk.

Whilst no one would argue with the fact that there is/was a real need for some kind of economic and, indeed, political restructuring in most LDCs, the conditions imposed by the IMF and IBRD could not be expected to do otherwise than exacerbate an already serious condition. The number and details of adjustment measures are too great for the scope of this paper. There are, however, a number that are relevant to the issue of food security. Amongst these is the stipulation that countries receiving Structural Adjustment Loans (SALs) must concentrate on increasing their exports so as to increase their income of hard currency, needed for servicing their debts. The IMF priority here is to sort out BoP deficits as fast as possible. For the majority of countries, particularly those on the African continent, this means increasing their production and exports of cash crops, raw materials for use in developed countries industries.

Another condition also designed to increase exports and bring more money into LDCs, is the devaluation of currencies. So as to make exports more attractive on the global market, countries receiving SALs have had to devalue their currencies, something that was arguably necessary in many countries. However, currency devaluation in conjunction with liberalisation, especially if we bear in mind that a large number of countries - all exporting the same crops - have been subject to these structural adjustments, has led to a marked drop in income in most beneficiaries.

Thus, devaluing currencies automatically mean the exporting countries earn less. Furthermore, an obvious consequence of having a large number of, for example, coffee exporting countries all increasing their exports simultaneously, is for the market price to go down. This has indeed been the case. Oxfams Kevin Watkins writes that whilst sub-Saharan African countries doubled their exports over the 1980s, their share of world trade halved, from 4 per cent to 2 per cent.[9]

Also among the SAL conditions of interest to us here, are stipulations calling for extreme cutbacks in government spending along with measures to increase revenue from the population. In real terms this has meant a reduction or complete loss of government subsidies to agriculture, meaning that small farmers are no longer able to afford costly inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides. Governments have also been forced to levy charges for utilities such as water and health services, thereby putting clean, potable water out of the reach of the majority of the rural poor.

Taken together what we have is a situation whereby the best agricultural land is being used for the growing of cash crops to raise hard currency to service unpayable debts, whilst farmers trying to grow food crops are often left with land virtually unfit for agriculture. Coupled with this is the further IMF/IBRD condition that those countries receiving Structural Adjustment Loans must fully liberalise their economies, opening their markets to imports of all kinds, including food. Thus we are left with a situation where, for example, the European Union with a glut of agricultural produce, is able to find needy markets for this produce where it is sold below the normal prices. This, of course, has the effect of undercutting local small farmers who, unable to compete with the agro-industry of the EU, are forced out of business. As a result, the number of people unemployed and living in poverty grows. In the words of former Haitian Prime Minister, Jean-Bertrand Aristide:

3.1 billion people make their living from agriculture. Their lives are on a collision course with globalisation. They cannot compete with industrial western agriculture with its heavy use of pesticides and fertilisers. And yet the world economy is not creating new jobs for them. What will they do?[10]

The effects, then, of increasing production of agricultural produce for export together with liberalisation of their economies mean that LDCs, despite being mostly capable of being self-sufficient in food, are left having to import food from the EU and USA, Whilst the same liberalisation strategies are leading to an increase in unemployment and urban poverty as the dispossessed rural poor are forced to migrate to cities. Ironically, we find that even those countries whose main export crops are food produce, are in this absurd situation. Looking at this somewhat more closely we see that many countries are exporting highly nutritious foodstuffs, such as pineapples, bananas, nuts and pulses; and importing high calorie foodstuffs with little nutritional value, mainly wheat, at prices that, although extremely low, are nevertheless beyond the reach of the meagre or non-existent incomes of the poor. As Michael Barratt Brown reports:

This results in serious protein shortages in the diets of many Third World people: 60 per cent were said in 1967 to be short of protein, 20 per cent to be short of calories, while the rich in the First (and equally in the Third World) eat too much of both. Some 40 countries have inadequate supplies for their own peoples' calorific requirements, let alone protein needs, and yet they are net exporters of food.[11]

Whilst a report from Corporate Watch argues that,

More and more basic foods are being imported following trade liberalisation and the concentration on export crops. Devaluation of local currencies, removal of food subsidies and frozen wages (another condition of SAPs) saw food prices internationalised to well beyond the reach of the people. In Mozambique food prices rose by 400  600 per cent as a consequence of these policies.[12]

Thus We can see that increased liberalisation of markets, whilst increasing the overall volume of world trade, not only does nothing to help those already suffering the effects of extreme poverty, it actually serves to increase this number. At the same time, however, the profits of the those multinationals involved in this trade continue to grow. Traders such as Cargill and Continental, for example, are buying wheat at "$60-100 per tonne from India and selling it at $230-240 per tonne on the international market, making a neat $130-170 profit per tonne, while India is losing $100 million in exports because of the concentration of power in the hands of five merchants of grain".[13] It is, therefore, hard to imagine that further increases in trade will result in any benefits for those most in need, but rather will merely serve to swell the coffers of the already disproportionately wealthy.

Another topical solution to the problem of food security comes in the form of GMO  genetically manipulated organisms. Currently being pushed by a handful of multinationals, as well as the USA government, GMO is being sold to sceptical populations in northern Europe and the USA, as the answer to the food security problems of tomorrow. Only through genetically manipulated produce, argue concerns such as Monsanto, will it be possible to ensure the availability of enough food in the future. Crops that are resistant to pests and herbicides will, they argue, also serve to protect the environment through the use of fewer chemicals. Monsanto tells us that biotechnology will:

- reduce post-harvest loss of food (caused by disease, pests and decay) and improving the quality of fresh and processed foods, thus boosting the realised nutritional yield per acre;

- displace resource and energy intensive inputs, such as fuel, fertilisers or pesticides, thus reducing unintended impacts on the environment and freeing those resources to be used for other purposes or to be conserved for the future;

- encourage reduction of environmentally damaging agricultural practices and the adoption of more sustainable practices such as conservation tillage, precision agriculture and integrated crop management;

- stimulate a new kind of economic growth: more benefit with less throughput and harm.[14]

If we look a little more closely at the facts, however, we see that all is not the way Monsanto would have us believe. For example, GMO crops are only suitable for large, industrial scale farming, whereas, as we have seen, the bulk of LDC food producers are actually small farmers. The monoculture farming practices involved in the growing of GMO crops has proved to be disastrous for the environment, quickly exhausting the soil and, therefore, requiring the use of costly chemical inputs.

In addition to the problems normally associated with large-scale industrial agriculture, biotechnology brings its own brand of problems. Critics fear, for example, that crops genetically modified to contain pesticides such as Bt, could lead to the appearance of Bt resistant pests. The argument is that constant exposure to the Bt protoxin will eventually lead to insect pests developing immunity to this pesticide, leading to strains of super bugs. According to studies from the NGO Genetic Resource Action International (GRAIN), Bt resistant insects are already present in the USA and other countries.[15]

The point here, however, is not to provide an analysis of biotechnology, rather we are interested in examining claims that the genetic manipulation of food crops will solve the problems of hunger. Critics claim that in the longer term GM crops are likely to lead to more and greater problems. Herbicide resistant crops, for example, will lead to over-reliance on a single herbicide in any one given area. This, it is argued, will ultimately result in weeds developing resistance to the particular herbicide, necessitating ever greater use of chemicals. According to Dr Steinbecher of the Womens Environmental Network,

If spraying occurs regularly, there is every reason to believe that weeds in or near fields of genetically engineered crops would develop resistance to the herbicide - as weeds become resistant, higher and higher doses of herbicide would need to be used, leaving larger and larger amounts of chemical residue on the crops.[16]

0 Whilst A report by the Pesticides Trust suggests that increased use of weed killers such as glyphosate and glufosinate could lead to the contamination of water. These compounds, they argue, are highly toxic for fish, an invaluable source of protein in many LDCs.[17]

Another area of concern is the likely loss of biodiversity GM crops would engender. Both through the use of herbicides that would kill all plants other than those genetically engineered to be resistant, and through the replacement of several different varieties of crop plant with one GM crop. Indeed, the dangers of mono cropping using a limited range of chemical pesticides and herbicides has long been known. In 1975, for example, Indonesian rice farmers lost half a million acres of rice to damage caused by the rice hopper insect.[18] Protection of biodiversity, on the other hand, also provides protection against such natural problems as drought, disease and insects, since different plant varieties have evolved to survive under different conditions.

Biggest is not Best

It would appear, then, that neither further trade under the current conditions nor GM crops offer a viable solution to the problems of poverty and hunger. This being the case, perhaps we should turn our attention away from grand-scale solutions and look instead at the benefits of thinking small. A great deal of recent research indicates that far from being the root of the problem, as proponents of industrial agriculture would suggest, small scale farming offers us the only real solution to the problem of food security.

Small farms tend to be both more productive and more efficient when regarded from the perspective of nutritional value per acre. According to Peter Rosset, small farms in LDCs are between 200 and 1000 per cent more productive per unit area than large farms.[19] Unlike the mono cropping associated with large scale, mechanised agriculture and GM crops, small farmer tend to practice inter-cropping - sowing not just one crop in any given area, but rather utilising the space between for a variety of different crops. Not only does this provide farmers with more crops per acre, it also reduces or even eliminates the need for costly chemical inputs.

Whilst large scale mono cropping may produce more of one particular crop per acre, the rows in between are left empty and, therefore, vulnerable to infestations by weeds. Inter cropping, through unitising this otherwise empty space, prevents weeds from gaining a hold and also serves to provide a variety of nutritious food crops. Furthermore, it also helps to protect biodiversity, which can help to provide protection from pests, both in terms of removing reliance on just one crop and insofar as a variety of plants can provide a home for other insects and wildlife that feed on pests. Indeed, "over 90 per cent of all pesticides in West Africa are used on export plantations ... Food producers are often the poorest farmers and simply cannot afford the cost.[20]

As well as the benefits mentioned above, small farms also benefit the local community and are an invaluable spur to real economic and social development.. Small farmers generally live on their farms, selling their produce at local markets and buying their supplies from local merchants, generating local wealth that is also spent locally. Where small farms are prevalent, so too are thriving local communities, as trade generates trade. As Rosset argues,

In towns surrounded by family farms the income circulates among local businesses, generating jobs and local prosperity. Where family farms predominate, there are more local businesses, paved streets and sidewalks, schools, parks, churches and clubs as well as better services, higher employment and greater civic participation."[21]

Conclusions

The question of food security is clearly more complex than simply providing enough food for the worlds growing population; we already have enough food yet there are still millions of people suffering the effects of hunger and poor nutrition. As we have seen, hunger is essentially a question of poverty: people are starving simply because they cannot afford to buy food. Current attempts at solving the problems of poverty and hunger are merely serving to further exacerbate the situation, widening the gap between rich and poor and using the resources of those who suffer most the effects of poverty and starvation to further enrich those who already have too much.

Reversing this situation will involve a radical rethink regarding the role and purpose of trade, as well as fundamental shifts in patterns of land use. The current situation that sees the best agricultural land in the bulk of the worlds poorest countries used for the growing of cash crops that only benefit the wealthy, is nothing less than criminal. At the heart of any real solution, therefore, is the question of land reforms. Land currently used for mono cropping cash crops must be made available to the dispossessed: the landless rural poor and the urban unemployed. Small farming should be encouraged, with the emphasis being on local, ecologically sustainable production for local consumption.

Land reform, however, is not enough as long as the markets of the poorest countries remain open to the cheap agricultural surpluses of the rich North, there will be little incentive for local producers to grow food. There is a real need, therefore, for the imposition of trade restrictions, imposing tariffs that would render imported foodstuffs more expensive than those produced locally and exporting only genuine surplus.

Whilst there are many obstacles to such reforms, the biggest is arguably debt. Cancellation of "Third World" debt must, therefore, be a priority. It is, however, hard to imagine such action originating in the countries of the rich North that profit so handsomely from the present situation. Impossible as it may seem, it would appear that the only hope lies in co-ordinated action from LDCs; a mass refusal to pay their debts. At the end of the day, addressing the problems of -and associated with poverty, requires a complete re-ordering of the Global Political Economy.

Finally, whilst the problem of hunger is not a question of overpopulation at the present time, as human numbers continue to grow there can be little doubt that we will have to face genuine shortages in the not too distant future. All available evidence demonstrates that as the wealth in a society increases, population growth slows accordingly. Addressing the problem of poverty will therefore not only provide everyone with an adequate food supply now, but will also ensure the security of our food supply for the future.

Ross Copeland is currently Lecturer in English for Economists at the University of Kassel,
Germany. He offers four courses, including one in Development Economics,
that combine English language with critical analysis. Born in South
Africa, he grew up and was educated in Britain. Although currently living
in Germany, he hopes to return to South Africa relatively soon. His chief
academic interests lie in the fields of International Relations and the
workings of the Global Political Economy and his research has been
Influenced by the Historical Materialist/Neo-Gramscian school of thought.
"I believe in the liberalising role of education and the importance of
choice and I feel it important that the social sciences be involved in
improving the quality of life for all people on the planet, not merely
restricted to a role of description and documentation. These ideas inform
both my research and my teaching" he says.